Comment Re:Fixed (Score 1) 78
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
"For all intents and purposes..."
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
"For all intents and purposes..."
17 USC 1201
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Warden controls access to the online portion of WoW (a copyrighted work) by checking to see if cheat programs are running and refusing access to WoW if it detects any. Glider is such a program that has, in the past, been blocked by Warden. Glider was updated to circumvent this access control.
Much of the DMCA portion of the case revolved around whether Blizzard's WoW was protected by this law. The court found that it was in the same way (essentially) as artistic license.
Page 13:
When Donnelly first introduced Glider, he read the Blizzard End User License Agreement ("EULA") and Terms of Use Agreement ("TOU"). These contracts did not at the time expressly prohibit bots. They did prohibit cheats and hacks, but Donnelly did not view Glider as a cheat or a hack because it did not modify any WoW code. By November of 2005, however, Donnelly understood that the use of Glider by his customers was a breach of their contracts with Blizzard.
Page 14-15:
To establish MDY's liability for tortious interference, Blizzard was required to prove that (1) a valid contractual relationship existed between Blizzard and its customers, (2) MDY knew of the relationship, (3) MDY intentionally and improperly interfered in the relationship and caused a breach or termination of the relationship, and (4) Blizzard was damaged as a result. See Antwerp Diamond Exch. of Am., Inc. v. Better Bus. Bur. of Maricopa County, Inc., 637 P.2d 733, 740 (Ariz. 1981); Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d 1025, 1043 (Ariz. 1985) (en banc), superseded in other respects by A.R.S. 23-1501. The Court found that each of these elements has been satisfied. See Dkt. #82 at 22-26. For Donnelly to be personally liable for MDY's tortious interference, the Court concludes that Donnelly must have known that MDY was engaging in tortious interference. Donnelly does not dispute that a valid contractual relationship existed between Blizzard and its customers. Donnelly clearly knew of the relationship - he read the contracts. Since at least November 2005, Donnelly knew that MDY was intentionally interfering with that contractual relationship by inducing its customers to breach the TOU. And, as the finding of fact set forth above demonstrate, Blizzard has been damaged by Glider.
There are others in the briefing, I just thought those two were pretty blinding examples for those that can do a touch of research.
Bullshit. If Warden failed to detect ANY bots, despite being intended to do so, does that make ALL bots circumvention programs?
As the court finds it, if the bot is written and advertised to "remain undetected by Blizzard", and Warden, as a "reasonable measure of protection" (Again, as found by the court) is written to block it and it is changed specifically so that Warden can no longer see it, yes.
Blizzard is pretty specific in its ToS that no bots are allowed to be run to fully automate interaction with the game. Even their macro language is written so that timed events cannot be programmed directly in, and each action must have a specific keystroke to accompany it. Those rules are often bent, I think, by specific addons, but Glider took that to a whole new level, Blizzard decided that it wasn't allowed and blocked it, then glider changed so that it remained undetected and so Blizzard took them to court.
You may not like the decision, but that doesn't mean you can argue with what Blizzard states are the rules to play its game.
By breaking the terms of the ToS, under their contract with him Blizzard can only cut off his service and keep his money. They can't fine him $150,000 "per act of infringement", as is the case with the DMCA.
You know, it's funny.
I didn't read this anywhere in the actual legal briefing and the findings of the court (I tend to go to the source, rather than believe a compiled article -- looks like a good plan, in this case). The DMCA breaches were cited because of the way that MDY circumvented Warden(as established by the findings of the court, a measure of protection of intellectual property) to allow access to Blizzard's servers that were not with Blizzard's permission. I don't agree with the methods Blizzard used here entirely (IANAL -- but I do work for the court) but from what I read the court took an extensive look into the facts of the case and determined that it Glided DID, by the written wording of the DMCA, violate the DMCA's clause of reasonable protection to an electronic system.
The "fines" are based on civil liability for loss incurred by Blizzard (both quantifiable, such as tech time and development to code and change warden to detect glider, and unquantifiable, such as loss of customers and the over 500,000 complaints they received), as well as civil liability for violating tort law by helping customers of Blizzard break their contracts (the ToS). Yes, there are civil liabilities for this.
Whether or not you AGREE with the law has little impact as to whether it IS a law.
When you have a level 80 hunter and warrior and mage, you may find that you'd really like to try out a shaman but the prospect of running through the 1-60 quests for the fourth time can get wearying.
There are legal ways to do this, that are covered by the ToS. Blizzard has publicly stated that you can multibox characters (even two on the same machine), and even use the Refer-a-friend program.
Glider, by its very nature, is against the ToS.
All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
